In a groundbreaking decision, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a narrow 4-3 ruling, declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the presidency under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause.
This unprecedented move marks the first-ever use of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify a presidential candidate.
“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court stated in its decision, setting the stage for a likely confrontation in the nation’s highest court over the front-runner for the GOP nomination.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
The legal battle centered on Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, where the court found that he had incited insurrection. Initially, a district court judge ruled that while Trump might have incited the insurrection, it was unclear if the provision applied to the presidency, thus allowing him to remain on the ballot.
However, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned this ruling, stating that it would stay its decision until Jan. 4 or until the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes. Colorado officials emphasized the urgency of resolving the issue by Jan. 5, the state’s presidential primary ballot deadline.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” expressed the court’s majority. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.”
Trump’s legal team swiftly vowed to appeal any disqualification directly to the nation’s highest court, labeling the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision as an assault on democracy. Trump himself didn’t address the ruling during a recent rally, but his campaign decried it as “tyrannical” in a fundraising email.
“This ruling, issued by the Colorado Supreme Court, attacks the very heart of this nation’s democracy. It will not stand, and we trust that the Supreme Court will reverse this unconstitutional order,” Trump’s legal spokeswoman Alina Habba said in a statement Tuesday night.
The decision has provoked strong reactions from various quarters, with the Republican National Committee decrying it as “election interference.” While Colorado might not significantly impact Trump’s overall election chances, the concern lies in the precedent set for potential exclusions from other crucial states. Trump recorded 13 percentage points loss in Colorado in 2020.
Legal experts highlight that this ruling could embolden other states to follow suit, threatening Trump’s candidacy further.
“I think it may embolden other state courts or secretaries to act now that the bandage has been ripped off,” Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor who has closely followed the Section 3 cases, said after Tuesday’s ruling. “This is a major threat to Trump’s candidacy.”
The Colorado case stands as the first successful attempt to disqualify a candidate under Section 3, a provision historically applied sparingly since the Civil War era. It was brought forth by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group.
The crux of the legal debate hinged on the interpretation of the language in Section 3, specifically whether it extends to the presidency. The court sided with arguments asserting that it would be inconsistent with the amendment’s history and intent to exclude high-level office-bearers from its purview.
Notably, dissenting voices within the court stressed concerns about the complexity of constitutional matters being addressed in a state-level hearing and emphasized the need for procedural due process before disqualifying a candidate.
Chief Justice Brian Boatright, one of the three dissenting voices among the seven-member court, expressed his belief that Colorado election law was not designed to adjudicate whether a candidate participated in insurrection. He said he would have favored dismissing the challenge to Trump’s eligibility.
“In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code,” he wrote.
This ruling in Colorado stands in contrast with decisions from other states like Minnesota and Michigan, where courts took different approaches or deferred the issue to Congress for resolution.
Last month, the courts ruled that the state party possesses the authority to include any individual of its choosing on the primary ballot. Although it dismissed a Section 3 lawsuit, the court indicated that the plaintiffs retain the option to pursue their claims once more during the general election.